The main legal point established is that the writ petition should not have been entertained, and the writ petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal available under the Act.

K. A. SWAMI, C.J.

This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated February 27, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P. Nos. 11169 and 11170 of 1985, in which the petitioner/appellant has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in the proceedings dated September 9, 1985 on the file of the first respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Circle I, Neemuch, Mandsaur District, Madhya Pradesh and quash the order passed by him on September 9, 1985 under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and issue directions to the first respondent not to levy sales tax under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 on the sales effected by the petitioner to Cement Corporation of India under contract dated April 7, 1983 and pass such other orders as are deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The impugned order dated September 9, 1985 declares the assessee as a works contractor and fix the sales liability from July 9, 1984 under section4 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. It is not possible to entertain this writ petition (W.P. No. 11169 of 1985) and decide the contentions raised herein, though the learned single Judge has gone into the contentions and rejected them. The proceedings relate to one taken under the provisions of the Act. The authority, who has passed the order, is the one, who is functioning in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In addition to that, the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order under the provisions of the Act. That it is so is not disputed before us. It is also not disputed before us that in the appeal, the appellate authority can examine all the contentions that have been raised in the writ petition. Hence, we decline to entertain this writ petition and hold that the learned single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition and keep open all the contentions to enable the writ petitioner to avail of the remedy under the provisions of the Act. We accordingly, allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated February 27, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11169 of 1985 and dispose of the writ petition, keeping open all the contentions to enable the writ petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, available under the Act. No costs. C.M.P. No. 11253 of 1996 is disposed of.